Delete.

Delete.

very good game.buy it :)

I did. Posted to the official forums, got told to fix the problem using a key generator (though I'm guessing that advice probably didn't come from the game company). You suggest that posting to the offical forum is not the way to go, but what happens when someone ("IVD") posts a key problem about the very game this thread is about?

They are told [I]"Please move on the official forum to get help with this issue".[/I]

(And you are being duplicitous here. When it's convenient to your argument [finding/using key hacks] you claim most everyone is incompetent, and when it's not convenient to your argument [asking for help with a non-functioning key] you expect everyone to know exactly what to do, and you know, just screw 'em if they do something so obviously "stupid" as asking for help in the official forums.)

So you provide the evidence of your own deception? First you completely downplay the possibility of key problems (because that was convenient to your argument at the time), but now that you want to paint yourself as some kind of expert on dealing with bad keys you suddenly know all kinds of people that have had problems with keys?

Wait, now you're saying you too have had problems with keys? These key things are really starting to sound like a bad idea! :-P

No, it's not, as you would realize if you weren't being so dense. When a game allows players to run their own servers, then any player can do so. You or one of your friends (if you play any multiplayer with games that support player servers) can run your own server for the games you play in.

It's really not very complicated when the game supports it. For example, Neverwinter Nights 2 manual, page 44, section "Hosting a Game Server": [I]"You can host a game by choosing "Multiplayer" on the Main Menu and then either starting a new game or loading an existing one. This launches a game server with the module or save game and other players will be able to play on your server as long as you are also in the game."[/I]

(Note that Neverwinter Nights 2 is not key-free, but to the best of my knowledge there is no way for the publisher to black-list the key with respect to you using it on player servers. But if you are running a player server you can ban people from your server and I'm guessing that's based on black-listing their key [for your server only].)

When you do the above, the server is dedicated in the sense that you and your friends will be the only ones using that server. (And if you aren't running other heavy-weight programs while playing the game, it is dedicated in that sense as well.) Unless you or one of your friends is a hacker, you probably don't have to worry about hackers on your server. (If you want to be security-paranoid, you could either use a private LAN or VPN to make sure no one else can get to your server.)

If the game has a multiplayer feature, then the multiplayer feature is part of the game. [That's a pretty simple tautology.] The fact that in some cases that feature will eventually stop working because it has been designed to be dependent on controlled/centralized servers does not change the fact that the feature is part of the game. It just becomes a non-functioning feature of the game when those servers go dark.

By your logic, if the entire game runs on the server (and they just route the I/O over the internet, like some game-streaming services already do), then nothing is part of the game. There is no game. Reductio ad absurdum.

Woo hoo!!! You now admit that one of the two points you made in your original post, specifically:
is incorrect. Success! <<TheJadedOne does victory dance>>

You seem to be confused -- you seem to think we are debating that issue. I am only talking about what DRM is and isn't, the technical aspects of keys, and the reason keys are used. You have repeatedly been trying to justify DRM (even while you say you don't like it), but I haven't been taking either side in that "debate" (monologue) of yours. To be clear, I do not believe I have made a single statement in this entire thread that made any claims about the effectiveness of keys in controlling piracy.

Since you have been debating that issue entirely with yourself up to this point, feel free to just take it completely off-line and continue without mucking up this thread further.

No, I did not. Yes, I said people can get locked out. (They can. You have now admitted as much.) I never made any statement to the effect that "these keys shouldn't be used" (nor am I saying they should be used -- I haven't been debating that point one way or the other).

Allowing players to run their own servers nearly completely solves the "problem" of people using publishers' servers for free. The only case that doesn't address is MOMs, but most MOMs require a monthly fee (which pays for the servers [and then some]). So the only sub-case not covered is MOMs which currently don't have a monthly (or annual, whatever) fee, and they could certainly switch to a fee-based system.

Whew, that was really difficult to figure out! /sarc

Which is the real target -- rights management over the multiplayer gaming feature. The cost of running servers (or not running them) is easily dealt with (see above). That is rather suggestive that preventing people from "enjoying multiplayer" is the true root cause for having keys.

LOL

Your prior claim was that [I]"They would only blacklist the key if they believe the copy you are using is not a legal copy or have done something to be banned from playing online."[/I]

You now admit that the key can get black-listed even though you do have a legal copy and have done nothing wrong (see your [I]"If someone [...] yes you may be blacklisted"[/I] comment).

So what exactly is this basis upon which they believe [I]"the copy you are using is not a legal copy or have done something to be banned from playing online"[/I]? That's right. None. In general they have no ability to distinguish between the case where someone is using a legal copy and has done nothing wrong and the case where they are using an ill-gotten key. And in this situation where they have no real basis for believing it's one or the other, their behavior is to black-list. They are firmly in the "Kill 'em all and let God [customer support] sort 'em out!" camp.

More funny. That was actually all original material. No rehashing at all. I guess it was a bit too inconvenient to the bogus distinction you were attempting to make.

No, that is the chance you take when buying a multiplayer focused game that uses DRM.

See, now that's rehashing. You've made these same general claims (multiplayer is not part of game, therefore game is DRM free, servers go dark anyways) many times, and I have already addressed them all.

If I put this into google: key wargame european escalation

Several key hacks (and a torrent) appear in the very first page of results. (And no, I am not going to download them and generate a key and illegally use the game just so I can say "I've done it".)

<<apparently hit the character limit (?) for posts so had to split my post>>

No, many publishers ARE stupid. As long as the key is only verified server-side (not client-side), is made cyrptographically strong enough, and they don't leak the server code (specifically the crypto keys), and barring quantum computers, the universe would die of heat-death before all the hackers in the world working together could generate a single valid key. The publishers putting out games that are getting key-hacked are just stupid/ignorant/careless with their security. (And it's sad, because it is gamers who pay for their games and have key troubles who pay the price for this stupidity. Such publisher stupidity causes other problems as well, such as this ("Warning - fraudulent keys of Wargame"):

http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=78&amp;t=3450

Ahhhh, it's a good thing you sprinkle some humor in your posts, or they would be even more boring.

First of all, I wasn't complaining about a key -- I was discussing the technical aspects and uses for keys, in the context and correcting erroneous statements you had made on those subjects.

Second, you don't see the need because you don't recognize, even after having it explicitly explained to you, that the key (DRM) is likely the primary reason in many cases that the multiplayer "isn't guaranteed to last more than a few years anyway" in the first place. (You know, the whole "many publishers don't allow player servers because they need to control every server in the universe so they can black-list keys" thing. It also just occurred to me that "planned obsolescence" [aka servers going dark] so they can sell more copies of their next game might be yet another perverse motivating factor.)

Not true. If "we" is "all gamers", then "we" could easily get them to switch to 100% non-DRM solutions pretty damn fast if "we" stopped buying games with DRM. I already have (*), years ago. Apparently you choose to remain part of the problem and support DRM with your $.

(*): Completely toothless "DRM" (which technically isn't really DRM as it fails to do any RM) is an exception in my purchases. E.g., some old games here have words/codes you have to enter at various points in the game, which is certainly annoying, but gog provides them in digital form along with the game and they get backed up when the game is backed up, so they are really not DRM at this point -- just a bit of an annoyance. (Also DRM that allows the player to control the rights management rather than giving the publisher control is perfectly OK in my book, such as the ability to ban someone from a player server you are running.)

Delete.

People just get the game for pete's sake instead of going blah blah blah blah

Delete.

Isn't it rather pointless to buy this game when there's a new one out already? I hate when publishers do this.

The pertinent question is: If a gamer pays for a legit copy of a game, might they be unable to play the game due to key issues -- even after they take what they believe are appropriate actions to rectify any key issues that occur?

Silverhawk already provided evidence that one gamer (Silverhawk) tried to resolve the key issue by posting on the official forum. This suggestion made by another gamer on steam is another datapoint showing that there are other gamers who think that the way to resolve key issues is by posting on the official forum. You want to blame them for this by saying they lack "common sense". But the original point holds, whether you want to blame the gamer for it or not -- gamers who end up with a bad key may not always get replacements. They may not get to play the game they paid for because of key issues.

And there are documented cases of going back and forth with the publisher not working either.

This person bought a legit copy of WoW second hand (as allowed by WoW's EULA), and was never able to play (or even install) the game.

Here's a documented case of contacting tech support and they refuse to replace the key:

"Unfortunately, because the code is being shown as used there's not much I can do. I would suggest seeing if you can receive any assistance on the forums. I am sorry about that."

And note that SUPPORT suggested asking for help in the FORUMS!

And another support response:

"Hello, the key has multiple IPs active which is considered license abuse. Someone else has been using your CD key or you installed the game and played multiplayer on more than one PC simultaneously. I cannot do anything to reactivate the key. I apologize for the inconvenience but my hands are tied."

And note the "I cannot do anything to reactivate the key" part -- they got black-listed.

Even after that run-in with support, that person persisted and eventually got a new key, but:

"the new key don't work"

There's a link (see 29.08.2012 entry) later in that thread to what appears to be the secondary culprit (DRM of course being the primary). It's not a key generator in this case -- key stealers are hacking people's PCs, stealing their keys, and then hacking their registries to give them a different (already in use by a bazillion people) key (so the stolen key can actually be used without being detected as a concurrent access). So add that to the list of problems associated with keys -- yet another motivation for hackers to hack your PC. (I think I have to add OS venders as another culprit there -- OSes really suck security-wise. You have to put everything in its own VM if you want to be safe.) But also note what they add at the end:

"If you end up being banned due to your cd-key being stolen there is nothing we can do for you."

They of course likely have no way to tell the difference between you getting your key stolen, or someone in their supply chain leaking keys, or their internal key gen algorithm (if they are using one -- true random numbers would be the proper way to go) is predictable and therefore susceptible to key-gen hacks. So if you get the "that key's already in use" message, their policy at least as stated on that page is "you're screwed".

It get's worse. Look at the 20.08.2012 entry:

After all it's the cheaters' fault for getting themselves banned like that.

They can't possibly know that there is only one vector for this key-stealing software to get onto people's PCs (it could be piggy-backed on all kinds of freeware, shareware, even commercial software, or put in a virus or worm), but they blame all of the affected gamers anyways.

For example::

"Interesting. I actually never downloaded something like that and still believe my key got stolen. Some one is definitely playing with my character."

(And the official support story doesn't explain how characters are playable by both the original purchaser and the thief in some cases, the original purchaser would not be able to connect ever much less to their own character if their key had been replaced. It looks like they have multiple different key issues going on. The hint that this character "borrowing" is key-related is people tended to see character "borrowing" first, and then later get the "key already in use" -- presumably because they tried to play at the same time as the person using a gen'd key.)

Some people got working replacement keys, multiple got non-functioning replacements, and at least one person got fed up after two months of waiting and -- ugh -- purchased another copy of the game so they could get a working key.

My favorite post:

[i]"Got my new Key today. Reinstalled Arma, patched up, installed Dayz, tried to play: "CD Key in use"
fuck this game"[/i]

But, I guess there are also documented "successes":

"Had the same problem, took over a year of phone calls and emails, eventually got it working. Ubisoft has the worst tech support I've ever had to deal with."

Anyways, the above is just some anecdotal evidence that trying to get support doesn't always yield success (and sometimes success may not be worth it considering what they may put you through). It's not meant as an indication of what % of legit players have problems with keys even after trying to get support (which is a disclaimer I shouldn't even have to add, but apparently you need me to do so).
I never claimed you "claimed" it, I said you wanted to "paint yourself as some kind of expert" via your "I know of many people who had keys not work" comment. It's subjective so there's no point arguing it, but I am sticking to that position.
Bull. You downplayed it here:
and here:
and here:
and here:
and here:
and every time you say "multiplayer is a secondary feature", "it's not a perfect system", or "servers go dark anyways". Downplaying the issues caused by keys has been a major part of your posts. And it's not just a matter of you speaking facts -- the last two and the "Chances are..." statement are devoid of relevant content, while the others are all erroneous statements (as I have argued previously).

Sorry, but your uses of "it's not perfect" have completely come off as you being dismissive of "slight blemishes" in an otherwise perfect system. Aka, downplaying. Think of what the opposite would be: "It doesn't always black-list legit gamers." Technically just as true as "it's not perfect", but skewed in the other direction.
Previously you said:
What will it be next time? 8 out of 10? 7 out of 10? Looks like you were downplaying the issue before. (Surprise! Not.)

<<part 2 of 3 -- the gog forum software needs some work + validation feedback>>

I didn't miss anything. You appear to be talking about open servers out on the internet that are publicly published, typically run by strangers, and random people can connect to. I was talking about private servers, run by you or someone you know and trust, and not published on the internet (i.e., not placed in some list of "GameX" servers). I made that pretty clear (to anyone who knows anything about networking anyways) when I said you could optionally "either use a private LAN or VPN to make sure no one else can get to your server". If you do either of those, your server is not exposed to the general internet. Only people on your private LAN, or people to whom you have granted VPN access can get to your server (at least in any reasonably feasible fashion -- the FBI could of course have snuck in your residence and planted a hardware monitoring/control device in your computer, or maybe you downloaded some malware trojan or something, but the chances of either of those a. happening and then b. being used to specifically compromise your game server are crazy low -- part of the crazy low comes from the server port not being visible from the internet so the normal vector of a port sniffer followed up by a game server protocol exploit is not possible, and unless you are Iran getting stuxnetted by USrael, the much more circuitous routes of attack aren't worth the hacker's time).

You don't have to play on those. You can, as I suggested run your own.
You were off debating with yourself again then -- I wasn't making any claim about "this is how all/most/whatever player servers are". Instead, I was talking about what is possible. Running a safe player server is completely possible. If you want such a server, you can run one (assuming the game supports private player servers). If you want to use an open player server run by some stranger you don't know on the internet and take your chances, you can do that too -- it's your choice -- but it is not the choice I was describing.
Your claim is completely contrary to industry standard terminology. Many applications have a client/server architecture. I really doubt you can find anyone writing client/server code that is going to seriously agree with you that the code that runs on the server is not part of the application. Yet here you are trying to argue that the code that runs on the server is not part of the game.

But you've repeatedly claimed it's not part of the game, which is the same thing, so you are simply being self-contradictory (whether you can comprehend that or not).
And there's some more self-contradiction. To try to give you a clue: Say a game consists of feature sets A and B. Consider three scenarios:
1. A and B both run on your local PC.
2. A runs on your local PC and B runs on a centralized server.
3. A and B both run on the centralized server.

Now say B is key-protected. Which scenarios do you then consider to have DRM? What if A and B are both key-protected (call those scenarios 1b, 2b and 3b)?

No, it was not a "general statement". It contained no "disclaimer words" such as "usually" or "often". It was presented as an unconditional statement of fact. That made it false, which was what I was pointing out in my first post, and why I brought up black-listing. At that point you could have simply acknowledged that the statement as written wasn't quite right, that there are exceptions, but instead you blew up the discussion by going into a giant "this ain't that bad, it's not really DRM, servers are going to go dark anyways, etc." spiel.

It's up to you to write what you actually mean. Don't write something else and then expect me (and everyone else) to read your mind.
Note that "should" and "will" mean two different things entirely. "should" is not exactly comforting. And if we are going to talk "shoulds", I would say that multiplayer "should" work forever as long as you are willing to run the server on your own gear.

You are doing that downplaying thing again.

And I'm not "making it seem" anything -- I have NOT ONCE made any claims about what percentage of players are affected or anything along those lines. (I don't have that data, and neither do you.) I have ONLY discussed things such as what is possible, what has happened, and what is.
No, it's definitely you. You said "has been debated longer than me and you ever will", but I have not been debating that issue. You changing it from "debated" to "talking" just looks like backpeddling.

What wasn't clear about this?: To be clear, I do not believe I have made a single statement in this entire thread that made any claims about the effectiveness of keys in controlling piracy.

Please quote at least one sentence of mine where I have made such a claim. You can't, and your statement about me turning this into a debate about effectiveness is total bunk.

I have also really not said anything about "needed". (I wouldn't use that word anyways, because "need" is just a word people use when they "want" something, but they want to make it sound like more than just a "want".) I have certainly proposed some solutions to some alleged problems of not having keys that you brought up. And once you remove the whole server-dependency issue, "need" then would seem an odd claim since we have so many DRM-free games selling well here on GOG.

You're going to have to do something about that grammar before I am going to be able to comprehend what you are trying to say.

I did not bring up key generators to try to point out that key-based DRM is ineffective at preventing piracy. I brought up key generators because when they are used they tend to screw up the keys of people who bought legit copies of the game.

Well, ain't that dandy how you can just speak for "most players" like that. Can I do that too?

How about you try playing any FPS on a (modern) LAN with a local private player server and then compare doing the same over the internet on some centralized server, then get back to us and report what the ping times are in those two scenarios. (The LAN server is pretty much always going to beat the pants off the internet-based server, with the only exceptions being a defective LAN/computer or some really expensive internet connections like the ones certain financial companies use for high-frequency trading.)

Even for non-FPS/non-twitch games, if you run a private server and you've got say you and 5 of your friends playing on it, it really doesn't take much local compute power to best the so-called "dedicated servers" when you consider they run 100s or even 1000s of players on each server. Their servers are normally going to be much more heavily loaded than your private player server. Of course if you are using some public player server run by a stranger, and he's running it on some old machine on which he's also running folding@home or whatever, and there's 100s (or maybe even just 10s depending on how few free cycles his machine has available) of players using his poor machine at a time -- yeah, that's going to suck.

I actually hope they get World in Conflict at some point as well :)

Are you sure you played this game?

Delete.